Accountability Within Homeschooling

[Dolly-VA]

That my viewpoint is similar to HSLDA may be as a result of my personal observations of government interference and acts in color of law. It seriously concerns me that people cannot identify what is and is not within the scope of a government authority...

I would have no problem with HSLDA if they were consistent. But that they say in one breath that once we allow any government control over homeschooling the door has been opened and then where does the control stop? And in the next breath say, vote no to gay marriage!? Not that I'm trying to voice my opinion one way or another on that issue, but 1) it's none of their business (sounds like what you all have been saying about gov't interference in homeschooling) and 2) once we have opened to the door allowing any government control over marriage, where someone has the potential ability to deny your application, where will the control stop? This reeks of hypocracy. Otoh, if you all who are so against gov't involvement in what is perceived as a personal and private matter that concerns only yourselves and your family's are also against gov't involvement in other areas also perceived as personal and private matters that only concern the individuals involved, then I totally respect your opinions.

(Now, I should duck!)

[ncmom]

If there is one thing that I would encourage homeschoolers to really teach is law, and I don't mean "just enough to get by for civics." Sit in during court cases. Go to a law library to research case law, and federal and state statutes.[/color]

I agree completely and although we use Christian curriculum when it comes to US history the books get used very little. I teach US history the old way. My kids learn why this country was founded and not the PS slanted way. What the Deceleration of Independence says, what our Constitution says, what the Bill of Rights say, and what their rights as citizens are. We do memorization of important documents too. Now we do still use our history books but I read everything first to make sure it is accurate and I try to find older editions before they were edited. I could sit and talk with someone about our government for hours, as long as they aren't a friend, but most people don't want to talk about it. In fact with elections coming up it is a perfect time for kids, with intelligent parents, to watch and learn. I personally watch everything because I am not registered with a party. I truly vote for whomever is the "Lesser of the two or three Evils". So my kids get really sick of the government lessons they get around election time, but it gives us good topics to talk about. Most people don't even know how the government really works because they don't teach that in schools anymore. Ask a kid who just came out of high school if we have a bicameral or unicameral government and I bet he wouldn't even know those terms existed or what they mean. No cheating you can't ask the valedictorian or salutatorian it has to be an average kid although they probably don't know either. Got to be honest my two overeducated sisters didn't even know the answer until they looked it up and they both have upper level degrees and just got out of college.
I was watching a news channel the other day and decided that if I could ask anyone up for election some questions it would have to do with my rights because I really don't think any of them realize I have them. People just let the government walk all over them. It is sad and I have pointed things out to people in my family and they have said back, and I quote "I don't want to talk about it. I am tired of people talking and not doing anything about it. I don't want to hear it you go do something and leave me alone." That was the saddest statement I had ever heard because I was doing something about it, I pointing it out to other people so maybe there would be a unified front. That is why I say that people in this country have their heads stuck in the sand. OR the other way to look at it is that we are no longer the Republic we started out to be and people do want to fix it but can't because things are just to far out of control.

[seekingmyLord]

I would have no problem with HSLDA if they were consistent. But that they say in one breath that once we allow any government control over homeschooling the door has been opened and then where does the control stop? And in the next breath say, vote no to gay marriage!? Not that I'm trying to voice my opinion one way or another on that issue, but 1) it's none of their business (sounds like what you all have been saying about gov't interference in homeschooling) and 2) once we have opened to the door allowing any government control over marriage, where someone has the potential ability to deny your application, where will the control stop? This reeks of hypocracy. Otoh, if you all who are so against gov't involvement in what is perceived as a personal and private matter that concerns only yourselves and your family's are also against gov't involvement in other areas also perceived as personal and private matters that only concern the individuals involved, then I totally respect your opinions.

(Now, I should duck!)

This thread is deteriorating fast....

Okay, then because you are comfortable with government regulation on homeschooling should I assume that you are also comfortable government control over marriage? You probably should be, otherwise it would have been hypocritical to purchase a marriage license, because by doing so, you asked the government for permission to marry. In other words, you recognized the state's control over marriage. A license is permission from the state to do something that would otherwise be illegal to do without its permission. For instance, a person may be fully capable to drive a car but it is illegal to do so without a license. Now does the license really make any difference to you? Would you not have married at least ceremoniously--no law against it that I know of--if the state deny you?

Another thing, the difference is that HSLDA is an organization, not a part of the government, that protects and promotes its religious views as well as it protects and promotes homeschooling. If you don't like it, you don't have to belong, but we do not get to opt out of the government control just because we don't like it.

[Kitty-Cat]

As for Australia, other than the worlds most poisonous and dangerous everything lives there , I know nothing. Just kidding that is all I got from the special on Australia's animals that I saw the other day.

yes I find most American's think of spiders, snakes and other creepy crawlies when thinking about Oz. Honestly we don't often see anything like that, mostly pesky flies and mozzies (mosquitos)

I have no idea what your government is like and what your homeschool laws are, I hope they are good. I personally will not travel outside of the US border. To dangerous so I only know what I am told, read, or see. But I know my government and they are a sneaky bunch!

All Gvts are a sneaky bunch and if people think that there Polly’s (politicians ) all go to bed wondering how they can help the people then yes their heads are in the sand. Power and money is what drives most Polly’s from whatever country they are flapping there gums from. Over here we have local Gvt, then State Gvt then federal Gvt. Our Prime Minister has been chin wagging with your George W Bush and there have been a lot of student protests about him and Iraq. Last night my dad was telling me that America has flagged them as ‘highly dangerous’

but it easily could become a request to the state to allow you to homeschool as long as it does not disapprove.

Each state has it's own laws, and no ours are not good. You have 3 options, 1 use a Gvt approved curriculum. 2 be a registered teacher or 3 Have a registered teacher look over and approve what you are planning. Hmmm doesn’t that look rather like a request to the state to allow us to homeschool so long as it does not disapprove...

They did recently make some amendments, and people are saying they are now more helpful and approachable....my thoughts is that that is a hook to get people registered. I heard on an email loop that one lady found while they were soo nice the first year, the second year she received a curt email stating she would have to redo her plans (Which were no different then the year before)...doesn't surprise me.
I have actually joined an American umbrella school so my kids can be classed as privet school students and not homeschooled ones. Course I haven’t tested this officially but there is nothing in the law to say my child’s school needs to be close by. If Gvt can be sneaky then so can I!

[Theodore]

I would have no problem with HSLDA if they were consistent. But that they say in one breath that once we allow any government control over homeschooling the door has been opened and then where does the control stop? And in the next breath say, vote no to gay marriage!? Not that I'm trying to voice my opinion one way or another on that issue, but 1) it's none of their business (sounds like what you all have been saying about gov't interference in homeschooling) and 2) once we have opened to the door allowing any government control over marriage, where someone has the potential ability to deny your application, where will the control stop? This reeks of hypocracy. Otoh, if you all who are so against gov't involvement in what is perceived as a personal and private matter that concerns only yourselves and your family's are also against gov't involvement in other areas also perceived as personal and private matters that only concern the individuals involved, then I totally respect your opinions.

There is a big difference between marriage, which is a religious ceremony, and a civil union, which should be allowed for tax purposes for any group of two or more people living together for an extended period of time. Having a sexual relationship should not be a requirement for the latter, otherwise you're basically giving a tax cut for having sex with your roomie. That's asinine. If two brothers are living together to save money, why should they not get a tax cut while the gays next door do? Their bond is every bit as strong and probably more permanent.

There are also practical societal reasons why marriage of one man and one woman should be promoted - it produces far superior results. Kids raised by single parents, or by gay parents, or even by a mom and live-in dad are massively outperformed by the kids of a traditional marriage. They're more likely to have a college education, less likely to become criminals, less likely to be abused, etc. The truth of the matter is that with or without an official ceremony, gays and lesbians rarely stick together for more than a year (media propaganda to the contrary), and typically have hundreds of "partners" during their relatively short lifetimes. This is not a lifestyle you want to promote as being equal to traditional marriage, either from a religious or a societal standpoint. Not that divorce is much better.

On the other hand, kids being raised by their parents with minimal state interference do much better than kids raised by the state or under state oversight. And more importantly, the kids can not be propagandized to the point where they'll do anything the state tells them to. The first thing you do when taking over a country is get control of the kids.

Just FYI, the purpose of a marriage license is to ensure that people aren't marrying underage, or marrying multiple times (polygamy). You don't have to prove anything beyond that, though at least one state does charge a larger fee if you don't go through a few hours of pre-marriage counseling on how to take care of a household. But this just makes good sense - you don't want the dad running off when his first baby arrives because he doesn't have a clue on what to do, and the middle-class / rich demographic (which typically does fine without the counseling) can afford the slightly higher fee.

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, but the simple fact of the matter is that you'll never make everyone happy - either religion takes a hit or gays don't get to marry - and the choice is fairly obvious from a societal standpoint. HOWEVER: This is an issue that should be left up to the individual states, not the federal gov't. If some states want to democratically pass legislation allowing gay marriage, that's fine, just like I think states ought to be able to pass legislation banning abortion, or making voluntary prayer in schools legal (it should never have been made illegal in the first place). If you don't like what your state does, you can always organize a campaign to overturn the decision, or move to the next state over.

[seekingmyLord]

Just FYI, the purpose of a marriage license is to ensure that people aren't marrying underage, or marrying multiple times (polygamy).

That is what it has evolved into, but I think the first marriage license was because it was otherwise unlawful for a black person to marry a white person.

About twenty years ago, I did some extensive research on family and contact law. Statutory marriages are all about contract, between three parties, no less--unfortunately one of them is not God. They are the husband, the wife, and the State and the State is the superior party of interest. That is why to dissolve a marriage, we must do so through court, who acts in the State's interest--believe it or not. But being released form the marriage does not release you from the contract with the State, and that, my friends, eventually evolved to all children being wards of the state, who remain in their parents care as long as the State does not disapprove. Dig into the law and you can find it.

On the other hand, kids being raised by their parents with minimal state interference do much better than kids raised by the state or under state oversight. And more importantly, the kids can not be propagandized to the point where they'll do anything the state tells them to. The first thing you do when taking over a country is get control of the kids.

I totally agree!

[Dolly-VA]

Hey, I would like to apologize for bringing up something on this thread, anyway, that didn't belong. Interesting responses, though! (And, Theodore, I have to say, your first paragraph really made me think. I agree with it ) Also, I have no problem with the silly license. Just like I don't have a problem with filing the NOI...oh, wait, I said that already. Though, Seeking, now that your brought it up, it kind of makes me wonder why someone hadn't thought of charging a "nominal filing fee" for homeschoolers... (And, NO, I do not think that they should! LOL!)

Hmm, marriage licenses have been around FOREVER. It has nothing to do with race. A quick, cheat look at wikipedia brought up this:

Licenses to marry began in the Middle Ages, when their purpose was to give permission for a marriage which would otherwise be illegal (for instance, if the necessary period of notice for the marriage had not been given).

Peace all!

[seekingmyLord]

Hmm, marriage licenses have been around FOREVER. It has nothing to do with race. A quick, cheat look at wikipedia brought up this:

Licenses to marry began in the Middle Ages, when their purpose was to give permission for a marriage which would otherwise be illegal (for instance, if the necessary period of notice for the marriage had not been given).

Peace all!

May be so, but they were not necessary in the New World and I was then referring to US laws and US history specifically. I am sure you already know this....it was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that a license was required to marry and the reason marriage licenses were required was because people wanted to marry inter-racially, which had been completely illegal, until some states started to adopt marriage licenses specifically for interracial couples.

[laurabeth]

Wow, my head is spinning after reading this entire thread lol, but I think it brings up many many good points for thought.

In response to the original question, I do not think government, federal, state, or local, should have any more regulation, I don't think homeschoolers should have or need more accountability. I live in SC, we have 3 options. The one I chose leaves me to report to a third party association 3 times a year, 1st to submit my curriculum choices (which are not regulated other than the core subjects that must be taught), 2nd is a mid year statement that I have completed 90 days, and third is a completion statement that I have completed 180 days. I must also keep a record of our studies, a portfolio, and attendance. Honestly I don't have a problem with doing these things, but I don't think they should be required either. No one sees my records unless I am investigated (like if someone called child services because my kids are not in school and they decided to be brats and investigate) but still, I don't think the state (or anyone) should have any say in the way I raise my children. I wouldn't however have any problem with a realistic standard to ensure children are being taught the minimum. (I will go into it later lol)

I also am a very opinionated person, so hopefully I wont offend anyone, but I also have a way of looking at many sides of a situation even if I don't agree. (If I may say so myself lol ) So many things have been brought up here I know I wont remember to touch on half of them lol but here is my 2 cents for what its worth.

Although I don't believe in government control, and I think it already has to much, I do have issue with some "examples" given here. I can understand where people are coming from on teaching children within there own belief system, and "trades" or "places within a household", but ultimately I think it is unfair to limit a child's learning to ones own beliefs. Just as I feel it is wrong that public schools teach a warped curriculum in some subjects, I think its wrong for homeschoolers to do the same. The reality of this country and this world is that there are many different people and beliefs, etc etc, and although we don't have to believe them all we do need to accept them if we are going to become a better people. There is already enough hate in this world without training our children only to accept those like us. As far as the "farmers daughter" example, how fair is it to that child to be taught nothing but to read if even that. The more you are taught the more the world opens up to you. That farmers daughter deserves to have the knowledge to make her own choices about her life. Just as much as a child doesn't know what candy is if you never feed it to them, a child doesn't know what knowledge and opportunity is out there for them if they are never exposed to it. Don't all of our daughters at least deserve the opportunity to choose between homemaker and scientist? There is nothing wrong with either but isn't it there choice?

I also have to agree with the opinion that it isn't right for people to say "down with government" on homeschooling but "control control" when it comes to gay marriage, abortion, religion, or anything else. It has to apply to all. I am not saying a homeschooler who is against gay marriage should necessarily fight for gay marriage but they shouldn't fight against it either. If you have the right to live as you wish so should others, you don't have to agree with it.

Personally, I believe everyone should be "allowed" (for lack of a better word at this late hour lol) to live and raise there children as they wish so long as it is not harmful to the children or others. The tricky part here is how to define harmful. If you ask 1000 different people you will get 1000 different answers. Thus this is an unachievable goal, but a nice discussion point! lol I think the closest we could come to this is if all homeschoolers could come together and define there own set of standards in there own "government", that could then be upheld by a national organization of some sort, but even that wouldn't please everyone. My personal opinion would be to have a national "test" that would simply test the core subjects (reading, writing, and arithmetic) at set grade levels that was a reasonable test. A test of factual information with factual answers, no opinions needed, and of actual knowledge. This could be created in the same manner as the regulations themselves in my make believe homeschoolers "government".

I know some people would be strongly opposed to something like that, and I can understand why. I am just of the opinion that there does have to be a happy medium. There are homeschoolers out there that, regardless of regulations or lack there of, don't teach there children. I think it is sad that those children didn't get the benefit that a good education brings. Do I think they would have been taught better in ps? Not necessarily, but maybe. I wasn't in that house, maybe they were taught more than it appears, but some national standard could help parents at least identify what areas there children need more focus on more than one might think.
I just want to say again, I am not suggesting government interference, I am suggesting a national standard WE create and regulate.

My make believe world is not perfect, and it will probably never come to be, but this type of thought and discussion is the only thing that will change the things we don't like about our country and keep the things we do the way they are. This issue isn't going to be solved here, and we are all going to be dead fast in our opinions most likely until the end, but it is food for thought. The only way anything will change is acceptance of each other and compromise with each other. If we are at odds it only gives them more leverage!


Ok, I am going to leave "make believe land" now that I have written a novel, but hopefully I have added some food for thought!

Just one more thing..... Again, I mean no offense to anyone here or anywhere, just my opinions to the topics at hand not your beliefs or lives!

[4given]

Whew, Laurabeth. You left my head spinning. I'm still not sure what your definite opinion is. But, I haven't awakened fully, either.

So people shouldn't limit their children's education based on their personal beliefs? If I decide that a book selection (that PS is reading) is too "mature" for my child then I should have consequences? The Govt. could perceive that I am stunting my child's education by disallowing a book they deem worthy.

Based on the Word of God, of which I'm a believer, abortion is wrong. I believe the scripture that says "before you were in the womb of your mother, I knew you". As a Christian, I am commanded to respect and follow the authority of the govt. except where it goes against God. As far as gay marriage...I could care less if gays marry. The problem I see is where does it stop. If love is enough why can't Joe down the street marry his chicken? You may think that's extreme but I do remember a while back that a lady married her dolphin. It was a committed love relationship, why not?

On the issue of HSing and govt. control...I think we've seen how out of hand things can become. It just took one woman's opinion and one judge's decision to remove prayer from school. Was that the majority opinion? I don't think so.

Having a standard test that WE decide is a nice idea. Outlandish, but nice. One of the greatest things about HSing for our family has been the freedom to move along at the pace my individual "students" need. A standardized test for HSers would very likely take that freedom away. My 6th grade son who is capable of 8th grade math, also struggles in 6th grade comp. I believe without the one-on-one he would've fallen further behind. Will the govt. see it that way? Will they care that he is "above grade level in everything else? Or will that be a point of contention, as well?

Gotta close for now.

[laurabeth]

Whew, Laurabeth. You left my head spinning. I'm still not sure what your definite opinion is. But, I haven't awakened fully, either.

I have many definite opinions, I was just trying to look at things completely. I would be glad to share if I knew exactly which subject you were referring to.

So people shouldn't limit their children's education based on their personal beliefs? If I decide that a book selection (that PS is reading) is too "mature" for my child then I should have consequences? The Govt. could perceive that I am stunting my child's education by disallowing a book they deem worthy.

I wasn't speaking on that small of a scale. I am speaking more of whole ideas/ideals not titles and not by grade. You said to mature for your child, maybe in a year or two it wouldn't be. Like I said though I am speaking more of the limits set on a subject all together. With what I am saying, if a book was to mature you pick another, or a topic to mature you wait to do it until it isn't. Also, I am not saying anything about government involvement, I don't think government involvement is the answer to anything.

Based on the Word of God, of which I'm a believer, abortion is wrong. I believe the scripture that says "before you were in the womb of your mother, I knew you". As a Christian, I am commanded to respect and follow the authority of the govt. except where it goes against God. As far as gay marriage...I could care less if gays marry. The problem I see is where does it stop. If love is enough why can't Joe down the street marry his chicken? You may think that's extreme but I do remember a while back that a lady married her dolphin. It was a committed love relationship, why not?

I 100% respect the fact that you believe abortion is wrong, and I think you have every right to feel that way and teach that value to your children. All I was meaning to say on the subject is that I don't think it is right to advocate a choice of freedom in one aspect and down another. Homeschoolers want to have the freedom for everyone to be able to choose to homeschool there children, not force everyone to homeschool right? Well why can it be a double standard with abortion or gay marriage where the individual doesn't have the right to choose? All I am saying is the right to choose should apply to all these rights not just one or two, freedom from government control doesn't come with one choice it comes with total choice. As far as the animal thing goes, I do understand your point there but there is a clearer line between humans marrying humans and humans marrying other animals than there is between man marrying woman and man marrying man.

On the issue of HSing and govt. control...I think we've seen how out of hand things can become. It just took one woman's opinion and one judge's decision to remove prayer from school. Was that the majority opinion? I don't think so.

Having a standard test that WE decide is a nice idea. Outlandish, but nice. One of the greatest things about HSing for our family has been the freedom to move along at the pace my individual "students" need. A standardized test for HSers would very likely take that freedom away. My 6th grade son who is capable of 8th grade math, also struggles in 6th grade comp. I believe without the one-on-one he would've fallen further behind. Will the govt. see it that way? Will they care that he is "above grade level in everything else? Or will that be a point of contention, as well?

Gotta close for now.

[/quote]

Like I said I am not advocating for government control, I was just putting my thoughts out there. I know my "make believe" homeschooler "government" stuff was outlandish, thats why I called it "make believe", again I was just putting my thoughts out there. I dont think government will ever completely give up control of homeschooling 100%, and I think even in the states that are easiest it will be a fight to keep them that way. The only point I was trying to make with my "imaginary government" was to throw out the idea of all homeschoolers coming together despite differences and fighting as one. Even though it may be an outlandish idea it may just take some outlandish compromise between homeschoolers and government to put more rights into our homes and a homeschooler run organization sounded like one. Also I did say that this make believe test made by us would be a great learning tool for us, not a backdoor for intervention. Obviously for this make believe of mine to do anything but keep record of all homeschoolers there would have to be standards but they wouldnt be government standards they would be standards created by the homeschool population.

Ok enough of my make believe, I want to make it clear that I am not saying I want government regulation, I don't. All I am saying is if there is no regulation at all by anyone it wouldn't be perfect either. I cant help but think about the people that would abuse having no regulation. There are people in this country that could and I think would keep there children home for nothing more than abuse and neglect. There is so much child abuse in this country as it stands and with no regulation on children at all it would allow those children to completely fall through. If I have to deal with MINIMAL regulation like notifying the state of intent and sending in a small portfolio or test results to show that I am indeed teaching my child to protect children as a whole thats ok with me. Each situation in individual and needs to be treated as such. If a child is excelling in most areas and not in others then teaching is going on, if a child is at grade level everywhere then teaching is going on, if a child is far below grade level in core subjects (reading writing and math) and does not have a LD there is a problem and imho it is not acceptable and shouldn't be allowed to continue. We should have the right to teach our children and choose our materials but there should be no choice in whether to teach those core subjects or not. Every child should be taught reading writing and arithmetic period. The current system stinks but somehow this has to be ensured.

[seekingmyLord]

So people shouldn't limit their children's education based on their personal beliefs? If I decide that a book selection (that PS is reading) is too "mature" for my child then I should have consequences? The Govt. could perceive that I am stunting my child's education by disallowing a book they deem worthy.

I agree. Slippery slopes.

Should all children be educated equally? The question is completely irrelevant because it is IMPOSSIBLE! I am completely for education, but I am also aware that my ideas of education would be very different if I live in another place with its culture.

The thing about the US is that it was meant to be a land of religious freedom. The Amish had to fight for the right to only educate their children to the eighth grade and they are not taught about many subjects to the standards placed by the state because it is not necessary for their lifestyle, which is based on their religion.

Now if a child is not educated at all by his homeschooling parents (also IMPOSSIBLE as the child will learn some things regardless if he is formally educated or not)does that reflect badly on homeschooling? Of course, because what is the typical in real life is not newsworthy; only the extremes make a new story and there will always be extremes as well as there are always going to be people believing what they want to believe.

As for reading, it is very important to me, but I recognize that it is not as important as it was. People nowadays can be educated by videos and recordings and get by without much reading. Do I think something would be missing in their education? It really is not for me to judge.

As to reading giving children more opportunities...well, a child could read and yet have their parents fail them in other ways that are so much more permanent and crippling emotionally and physically. In comparison, the inability to read is fixable, very fixable.

[Theodore]

You can learn without being able to read, just like you can survive in the US without being able to speak English, but you can't be as effective. Everyone in the US needs to be able to speak, read, and write the primary language so as to be able to communcate with each other as a nation, not as a bunch of separate fragments.

[seekingmyLord]

You can learn without being able to read, just like you can survive in the US without being able to speak English, but you can't be as effective. Everyone in the US needs to be able to speak, read, and write the primary language so as to be able to communcate with each other as a nation, not as a bunch of separate fragments.

I agree, but effective at what? It is not every one's mission in life to be "effective."

[Theodore]

So in your opinion, it's ok to just be, your object is not to improve yourself as much as possible? What do you think would happen if everyone in the US thought that way? Our economy would collapse in two seconds and we'd be conquered by China or Russia.